On to something huge here! (UFO HOAX)

page: 28
9
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Southpaw11, I deliberateley did not vote for Frozenthought to be banned when I could of, to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that it is a false and misleading account, yes, but indeed I do not know. So I have to agree with you on some respects.
Springer can tell you the rest, as I'm sure that he's more than qualified/experienced in reserving judgement on matters like this.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Xeros]




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
Southpaw11, I deliberateley did not vote for Frozenthought to be banned when I could of to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think that it is false and misleading account yes but indeed I do not know. So I have to agree with you on some respects.
Springer can tell you the rest, as I'm sure that he's more than qualified/experienced in reserving judgement on matters like this.


YES. This is what we've all gotta dig deep for. It's inside ALL of us. And it's NOT easy to muster... especially in a venue such as this. It doesn't matter whose opinion/theory it is... we've gotta hear ALL of it.

If there is something that has been PROVEN. Not, some people agree... concur... and therefore, we have a majority, so the world IS flat, afterall! LOL! No thank you. YOU guys are here to DENY Ignorance, not unknowingly make yourselves and the rest of us a collective catalyst FOR Ignorance to THRIVE... It's unavoidable. You discount or choose NOT to investigate evidence... You've personally tainted that investigation. yikes.

I agree with you on this point. There need be NOTHING more than THAT... the THIRST for TRUTH. The ability to muster restraint long enough to see the entire picture... That's all we're BOTH after, right?

Kewl.

Rock on.


SPout



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'd just like to point something out that I feel might be useful in this discussion, perhaps you will feel the same.

In the thread I started with the questions for abductees... the Identifiers...

If you have not seen it... please check it out... you might be surprised. Also, this leads me to my specific point. If we examine the responses of FrozenThought against those of the other individuals that have replied, we note an interesting pattern.

There are several similarities. Too many, if you ask me to be construed as "coincidence"...

Might we reconsider our position on FrozenThought based upon the prospect that ALL these unrelated people MIGHT have something VERY serrious in common?

They are ALL abductees. They ALL have had the same type of things happen to them over time. And even though that fact, alone, does not confirm this... I would be willing to bet we could get them ALL to a point where YOU, they, we, and any other HUMAN would feel comfortable with the results being demonstrative of the REALITY OF ABDUCTION.

Hope this information is helpful, and not taken as argumentative.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

SPout



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Thanks for makings this obvious thread that is airplanes evendent that this is not an enterplanaetery space craft landing in the lake.

Mabye now it will die



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero
Thanks for makings this obvious thread that is airplanes evendent that this is not an enterplanaetery space craft landing in the lake.

Mabye now it will die


All due respect... back when AOL started... I was in college... I remember what "drunk type" looks like... is THAT drunk type? LOL!


I don't understand what you were saying? Are you agreeing that there is now an additional reason to reconsider FrozenThought's story? That WE must keep an OPEN MIND, even if WE think WE KNOW IT ALL... that we have to recognize and realize THAT WE DO NOT? That perhaps, due to the fact that FT has presented evidence that is VERY similar, indeed, to that provided by SEVERAL others about the SAME line of questioning, perhaps we should DIG DEEPER, rather than throw this out, in arrogance?

OR...

Has your mind ZIPPED ITSELF UP... just like it is supposed to... according to THEIR plan?

Sad, really, if that's the case.

RESERVE JUDGEMENT. please. If NOTHING ELSE. RESERVE JUDGEMENT.

SPout

[edit on 25/202/07 by Southpaw11]

[edit on 25/202/07 by Southpaw11]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
If I missed it, then I will take the heat... no worries.

Did anybody, in the analysis of the "anomolies" themselves, happen to note that a reflection briefly appears on the water of the anomoly on the left... then simply "disappears".

So, is this some advanced technology, or is this going to be explained as some "photographic" effect?

Let me know... If you've not noted this. Please... don't take MY word for it... go review the video again... right at the transition point to nightvision... look for the reflection on the lake underneath the object on the left. I can't tell if the shadow of the one on the right ever appears.

The reason I feel this to be important, is that the reflection was not at a very great range at all... yikes.

Also, I sent this video over to a USMC Huey Crew Chief... a TRAINED OBSERVER... his brother is an intructor at WTI... Top Gun, basically... I'm hoping he will have time to get a look at it as well. I'm not so sure I buy this as aircraft. Period.

SPout

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Can the mods please lock this thread? It's been debunked past any hopes of resurrection. Granted I think it should be kept around for information purposes but is there really anything else relevant that can be added to this hoax?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
Can the mods please lock this thread? It's been debunked past any hopes of resurrection. Granted I think it should be kept around for information purposes but is there really anything else relevant that can be added to this hoax?




Could somebody address my question?

I mean... if a CRIME had been committed, and the investigation team thought they had it licked, and then a VALID question came up that required you to rethink it, then what do you do?

a) Shelf it. Forget about it. Doesn't matter anyway.
b) Reconsider the entire thing with the additional information

Which?

Has anyone looked at the reflection ON THE WATER when the camera is switched to NIGHTVISION? If ENDS at a relatively close range. What of the motion of the ROUND "airplanes"... oh yeah... it must be ALL "lights", right?

Seriously...

The reflection. Who accounted for it? Where is their assessment? I didn't see it. I saw some GREAT work on the imagery of the anomolies... but I didn't see anything about the reflection that just *poof* disappears... Did I miss it?

SPout



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
Can the mods please lock this thread?



Agreed.



Yawn...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11

Could somebody address my question?

I mean... if a CRIME had been committed, and the investigation team thought they had it licked, and then a VALID question came up that required you to rethink it, then what do you do?

a) Shelf it. Forget about it. Doesn't matter anyway.
b) Reconsider the entire thing with the additional information

Which?

Has anyone looked at the reflection ON THE WATER when the camera is switched to NIGHTVISION? If ENDS at a relatively close range. What of the motion of the ROUND "airplanes"... oh yeah... it must be ALL "lights", right?

Seriously...

The reflection. Who accounted for it? Where is their assessment? I didn't see it. I saw some GREAT work on the imagery of the anomolies... but I didn't see anything about the reflection that just *poof* disappears... Did I miss it?

SPout

I didn't happen to see the reflection on the water but if theres one heres some ways to look at it.
1. Aircraft landing lights are a flood beam focused to the front of the aircraft, of course it would shine on the ground or water closer to the camera.
2. The line of sight from the camera to the water is at an angle slso the line of sight from the plane to the water is at an angle this causes some distortion between the light's position in the air and it's reflection on the water. You can try this at a lake or an outdoor swimming pool when the moon's up. look at the water and look at the moon. The reflection is going to appear to be closer to you than the moons point in the sky. I'll even upload a drawing of it if you'd like.

BTW I'm not retracting my statement that this should be locked. No matter what anyone says you're not going to listen to them, we have that established already. This thread is as good as dead in my point of view and it needs to be locked so it doesn't keep floating to the top of the board.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   
You looked at the orb. Now can the orb look at you? I can only hope but I doubt it. Nitey Nite...the truth is out there but some of us are blind in one eye and can't out the other. Can't hear, smell, touch, feel, taste, imagine, think, see, live, love, etc. Sweet dreams d00d!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
I didn't happen to see the reflection on the water but if theres one heres some ways to look at it.
1. Aircraft landing lights are a flood beam focused to the front of the aircraft, of course it would shine on the ground or water closer to the camera.


Concur. BUT it would also careen out over the water as the attitude of aircraft changed... as the nose came up... right? I learned to fly in the Civil Air Patrol at age 16 in a Cessna 182. The second set of lights ABSOLUTELY look like an aircraft on approach, coming in tailing the leader.

UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. Then the behavior gets WHACKO. Look at the nightvision section. NOTE: these "aircraft" are no longer in their "approach" at all, that they are HOVERING, and then one heads to the left of screen, the other advances on the person recording the event.

And what of the "orbs" as opposed to "aircraft" and "landing lights" separately distinguishable? Where's the expert on nightvision? Did anyone approach THAT yet?

Come to think of it, I don't think I buy the argument about these "aircraft" being in an approach pattern, anyway. I'll go back and look again. I know the thought's been posed, but I don't remember seeing crossreferenceing with ALL local airports.

My problem is this:
IF these birds are on final to ANYWHERE, then they have got to be pretty close to touching down, right? That means that you would also expect those same birds to come into view eventually... yet... they DON'T.

Also, along this line, if the argument has been made that they are miles and miles and miles away... I think I saw as many as "30 miles range"... would they be on FINAL APPROACH?!?!?

IF these are aircraft, then who has come and confirmed these birds are actually in an approach pattern. If they are, then what happened during the nightvision section? They didn't KEEP FOLLOWING EACH OTHER. WHY? Are they not both going to the same place, by the theory that AXED this thread?

Also, I may have gotten this video in front of some USMC Flight Instructors at WTI. THAT is the opinion I wanna hear. I also have it in front of a USMC Huey Crew Chief. Anybody who KNOWS what a "Huey Crew Chief" DOES... KNOWS that THAT dude sees EVERYTHING and KNOWS what it is. ASK THEM.

IT IS THEIR JOB TO KNOW.




2. The line of sight from the camera to the water is at an angle slso the line of sight from the plane to the water is at an angle this causes some distortion between the light's position in the air and it's reflection on the water. You can try this at a lake or an outdoor swimming pool when the moon's up. look at the water and look at the moon. The reflection is going to appear to be closer to you than the moons point in the sky. I'll even upload a drawing of it if you'd like.


YES. But the moon's reflection doesn't "turn off" like THAT did.




BTW I'm not retracting my statement that this should be locked. No matter what anyone says you're not going to listen to them, we have that established already. This thread is as good as dead in my point of view and it needs to be locked so it doesn't keep floating to the top of the board.


Good. Don't. But remember, if the WORST skeptic is convinced, THAT is when we have Truth. Not a moment sooner. And we go no faster than our slowest man... so I guess we'll ALL get there together, right?


[edit on 2/26/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
What became ultimately interesting about this thread was not the video itself but the psychological profile of Frozenthought:

The friendly attitude when the video is first posted -

The disappointment shown when some people question the footage-

As serious doubt about the video's validity is shown he tries to re-ignite interest with a false promise of providing even better 'mind-blowing' video -

The evidence against the video continues to build up so a distraction story of a mysterious physical attack against himself is added out of left field-

This fails to generate any sympathy so he resorts to attacking the credibility of those providing the proof that we see nothing other than aircraft-

On realising he is up for a ban a desperate attempt is made to gather support-

And a final last gasp of doomed self-pity comes when, knowing the game is up, he ups the ante again and claims to have been abducted and experimented upon by extraterrestrials!

The whole thread gives valuable insight into the lengths a hoaxer will go in order to deceive people. It should be preserved as a benchmark case.




The internet psychology is amazing. Trolls, with low self esteem, and high narcissism, attack you for no reason, and hoaxers looking for attention, lash out when they don't like the type of attention they get, it goes on and on.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11
My problem is this:
IF these birds are on final to ANYWHERE, then they have got to be pretty close to touching down, right? That means that you would also expect those same birds to come into view eventually... yet... they DON'T.

Also, along this line, if the argument has been made that they are miles and miles and miles away... I think I saw as many as "30 miles range"... would they be on FINAL APPROACH?!?!?

IF these are aircraft, then who has come and confirmed these birds are actually in an approach pattern. If they are, then what happened during the nightvision section? They didn't KEEP FOLLOWING EACH OTHER. WHY? Are they not both going to the same place, by the theory that AXED this thread?

I have some difficulty understanding what you mean, but I will try to explain what I think this is.

As I said in the first thread started by Frozenthought, this looks like something I have seen many times, especially in the summer, when I am on my balcony. I live some 10km South of Lisbon's airport, and the planes usually make their approach from the sea, make a small left turn and head for the airport.

From my balcony I have seen lights that look like those some 5 minutes or more before I could identify them as airplanes and before they start to make that left turn.

In this case, the "planes" are coming in the direction of the camera but they are not going directly to the airport, the airport is to the left of the image, in the direction the first light follows.

The second light could be also a plane for the same airport, just doing a wider turn to give the first one time to land or an airplane going to a different airport, I don’t know.

I have asked Frozenthought what time it was and there were two consecutive landings at that airport (Cleveland Hopkins) at that time in that day, so I think they are airplanes.


As I said, if I can borrow a camera and if this thread is still open, I will post a video of what I have seen many times.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Just look at the evidence...

'Nuff said... Thread CLOSED.

Springer...





top topics
 
9
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join